Bookmark and Share  
Home Forum Index Politics Philosophy Diversions Theology Join Tips & Rules
SelectSmart.com SelectSmart.com®
Before you decide
Over 20,000 selectors
Welcome! » Log In » Create A New Profile

Oops. Looks like Obama isn't getting the funds from those who supported him in 08. Progressives and Wall Street have turned their backs on the Pres.

Posted by Anonymous User 
BuzzFeed tells us that the most liberal grass-roots supporters of Obama, the kind of small donors who eagerly donated 200 bucks to the senator from Illinois in 2008, aren’t ponying up the cash this year.

Maybe they should mull over the deeper meaning of the recent Politico headline: “Wall Street’s Vote: Romney by a Landslide.”

Financial sector donations to Romney and his super PAC currently total $37.1 million. To Obama — $4.8 million. A significant proportion of the cash is coming from moguls who supported Obama in 2008.

A sample:

Ken Griffin, founder of the Chicago-based hedge fund Citadel, has accused Obama of engaging in “class warfare” and gave $2,500 to Romney’s campaign, plus nearly $1.1 million to the pro-Romney super PAC Restore Our Future. But in 2008, Griffin donated the maximum $4,600 to Obama’s campaign and helped raise another $50,000 to $100,000.

Let’s get this straight. Obama continued George W. Bush’s bailout of the financial sector, has failed to prosecute any Wall Street executives for crimes related to the financial crisis, extended Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthy, passed an extremely mild piece of bank reform legislation and let the banks get away with murder on the housing/foreclosure crisis. But he also said a few mean things about Wall Street fat cats, and he supports, in theory, higher taxes for the rich. CLASS WARFARE!

Liberal disappointment in Obama is easy to understand. He didn’t nationalize the banks; he didn’t push for a public option in healthcare; he authorizes drones to murder from the sky; et cetera. He has not transformed America as so many people apparently hoped he would. We can argue about how much he ever could have achieved, given the opposition of Republicans, but that’s all moot. He’s not inspiring the same level of excitement in 2012 as he did in 2008 and there are good reasons for that.

But still: Money talks. And apparently, any regulation is too much for Wall Street. And any suggestion of a more equitable distribution of wealth in the U.S. is verboten. If there’s any question about who Wall Street thinks would better serve its interests in the White House, the campaign finance numbers settle it, once and for all.

The New York Times reports that in May, Romney and his backers raised $76.8 million — $17 million more than Obama. Obama is getting especially clobbered in super PAC contributions : On Tuesday morning, the Wall Street Journal reported that casino magnate Sheldon Adelson contributed another $10 million to the Romney-affilated super Pac Restore Our Future.

[www.salon.com]
But people like Curt insist that money doesn't win elections.
Well that simply isn't true. SOmething like 95% of all elections in the past thirty years have been won by those who had the most money.

[www.opensecrets.org]
We had a debate on that. I'll try to find it.

Here it is: [www.selectsmart.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 06/13/2012 10:49PM by Mulva.
Hate to say I told you so but... I told you so. This is exactly what I predicted back when Obama was busting a nut trying to get GOP support for healthcare - the GOP would never help him, so all he was really doing was alienating the left. He should have went into office exactly as Bush did - with an agenda that appealed to his own party. If someone said the GOP wasn't happy, he should have said what Bush said... "those are not my constituents".

This goes back to the problem with Democrats in general. The Ds and Rs are playing two different games. The Rs don't care what the Ds think. They don't listen to them, they don't agree with them on anything and they certainly don't reach across the aisle to help them. If that's to America's detriment - so be it. The Ds? They're ALWAYS trying to please the Rs, they agree with them on about half of their ideas and they ALWAYS INSIST on working with them.

Two different sets of rules. It's no wonder the Ds are basically irrelevant.
Regarding the debate on money in elections: it turned out that Gingrich didn't really have the money and was operating in the red almost the entire time.

And you have to look at the overall picture...

08 was a race to which candidate could generate a billion fuking dollars.
And you had that exactly right, Indy. It's a codependent relationship.

Codependency (or codependence, interdependency ) is defined as a psychological condition or a relationship in which a person is controlled or manipulated by another who is affected with a pathological condition; and in broader terms, it refers to the dependence on the needs of or control of another. It also often involves placing a lower priority on one's own needs, while being excessively preoccupied with the needs of others.
Maybe an exemption for "the rich" should've been included in the plan to eliminate American healthcare?
Moderate Democrats are the reason Obamacare was not as pleasing to liberals as they would have liked. Go back and check the voting on this. The Republicans did not help at all and weren't the ones who had to be catered to.

Also, shouldn't an intelligent liberal draw some conclusion from the financial industry separating Romney by a humongous margin in contributions?

____________________________________________
Obamacare on track for 7 million sign-ups, a figure opponents said would never be reached.
The financial industry sees the writing on the wall, knows they can elect Romney and that he will do their bidding, that he's a tool just like Obama but that Obama's gonna' lose in November.

Don't forget that these are the same people who backed Obama in 08 and are still contributing to his campaign in order to hedge their bets.
Not hedging. Going all the way for Romney hoping he'll win and do their bidding.

____________________________________________
Obamacare on track for 7 million sign-ups, a figure opponents said would never be reached.
HHH seems to fit the "co-dependent" definition to a T.
Based on your inadequate training in assessing that?

____________________________________________
Obamacare on track for 7 million sign-ups, a figure opponents said would never be reached.
Seems adequate enough in this particular instance. smoking smiley
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login


Map IP Address
Powered byIP2Location.com

This forum powered by Phorum